…women are more likely to be killed at home by their spouse, ex-boyfriend, or some other intimate… [link]
That statistic was made in reference to this country, but I think I’ll be forgiven for wondering if it is applicable everywhere. SM reader 3rd Eye submitted a story to our News tab; it does not have a happy ending. It involves a couple named Shah Jahan and Mumtaz, though this Mumtaz wasn’t anywhere near as adored as her namesake.
Shah Jahan Ali, in his late forties, has been arrested on the charge of murdering his wife after he found her drinking with two young men at home late last night.
Neighbours at Dinhata’s Village I, who often joked about the couple’s names, said Shah Jahan suspected the comely, 30-year-old Mumtaz of cheating on him.
The murdered woman had one thing in common, though, with the Mughal queen remembered with the world’s most famous monument to love. Neither was born Mumtaz, both being given that name by their doting husbands. [link]
The victim, a divorcee, was born “Khaimala Roy”. She received her new name after converting to Islam, to marry Shah Jahan, her second husband. He sounds like a real catch:
The already married man would spent some five days a week with Mumtaz at Village I and the remaining two days with his first wife in Navina.
“I knew Mumtaz was a woman of loose morals. Still, I fell in love with her. I had told her there will be no affairs, but she didn’t listen,†Shah Jahan is believed to have told the police.
Yesterday, the youths had fled at the sight of him and the couple had then quarrelled through the night. The police said that in the early hours, Shah Jahan slit Mumtaz’s throat. [link]
Then, he went to his first wife’s home, where he was caught after Mumtaz’s family reported the heinous crime.
Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him. [link]
Can I get a hearty “WTF” for that last, bolded bit? I know, I know…a woman’s life is worth so little, especially when she smells like dishonor.
In case you didn’t know about the original Mumtaz:
Empress Mumtaz, whose real name was Arjumand Banu, too, was Shah Jahan’s second wife and the favourite among the nine he ultimately married. They lived in wedded bliss for 19 years before the 38-year-old Mumtaz, while delivering her 14th child, died in 1631. [link]
::
Off Topic (and yet not, considering this suddenly bookish thread): I liked Mumtaz until I read The Feast of Roses. Then I found her annoying. Nur Jahan, all the way.
Sad story. But I LOVED the book “Feast of Roses” and the prequel- I wasn’t consciously trying to exoticfy anyone- the book did that pretty well though.
I’m partial to Anarkali myself.
Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a ‘compromising’ situation with other men, completely looses it, kills her. Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think ?
You’re so right. I can and should be more blase about femicide, because it’s so ubiquitous.
well…maybe not blaze. but…this isnt a unique cultural thing. i mean, dishonor etc, makes it sound like a very muslim thing. but…a jealous husband isnt a new story endemic to this situation.
Emperor Shah Jahan spent his last days in jail as well after being ousted by his sons. Some googling here:
She was drinking with two young men? Whose word do we have for that, just his? It sounds pretty far-fetched, the sort of thing an angry husband would say because he was suspicious.
Lots of loud WTFs here, especially because the schmuck had a second wife and then flew into a rage because his wife was possibly maybe chatting to another man. Sheesh.
To add insult to injury, I suppose the Bajrang Dal will be all over this case and point to the tragic Mumtaz as an example of What Happens to Girls who Convert and Marry Muslims.
Sounds like a crime of passion to me, husband comes home, finds wife in a ‘compromising’ situation with other men, completely looses it, kills her. Pretty common story, both in the west and the east, dont you think ?
No, only in India.
Does anyone remember the Tom Jones song ‘Delilah’? (no I’m not that old, but my father had the record).
Not that his actions are anything but deplorable, but why make up such a tame lie? If he were to make something up it would be much bigger than just drinking with two men, I would think.
crime of passion? please. quite frankly, that defense is pretty hard to prove. plus, i don’t know what’s ‘compromising’ about drinking with other men. though, culturally, it could be seen as suspicious, it’s not compromising per se.
Shah Jahan punched a sub-inspector and tried to flee. After the police caught him, the villagers gheraoed the force and tried to free him.
What’s up with this bit? They wanted to give Shah Jahan some village-style justice first?
If I reacted in a horrified terrified fashion to every murder that took place in the world, I would not be able to live with any sanity at all 🙂
But then, the point I was trying to make is, that use of hot-button words and phrases like ‘honor-dishonor’ and ‘a woman’s life is worth so little’ in the context of this story is a little bit racist, perhaps in a subconscious and subliminal manner.
Consider this, if this tragic story that appeared in telegraph india, appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?
Probably not.. So whats happened here is that there is a larger world view about India, Indians, Indian muslims, muslims, third world countries, women, men etc. that the blogger has used to comment on a story thats rather sparse on facts and details, that itself is perhaps colored by the perspective of the original reporter.
The post is interesting to me only in how it illustrates the ‘world views’ or the perspectives of the people who commented on the original crime, as nothing much, that matters is known about the crime in any case. The entire commentary is sparse on facts, but pretty big on opinion.
If so, then whats the point in talking about the original crime anyway ? Lets talk about the opinion, how it has crystallized, and perhaps use the real incident as a kind of reality check..
Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?
Sudeep, the story did not appear in a US newspaper. And it was probably reported in the Indian press mainly because of the couple’s historically evocative names, and also probably because it confirms some stereotypes about Muslims (notice any pattern in what 3rd Eye posts?) I think you’re imagining a western maligning conspiracy where it frankly isn’t an issue.
only if he stays away from tequila body shots
Would you be completely comfortable with you husband going out drinking with other women?
Sure. Those other women have nothing on me! 🙂
maybe you should add ‘bloody marys’ to that list too. Point is, while this guy was completely in the wrong, let’s not “angelize” her actions either.
HMF:
I gotta take exception to your remark. If , in a marriage, you cannot trust your partner with members of the opposite sex then what is next ? Don’t eat with them? Don’t work with them?Don’t talk to them?
The days are long gone when “drinking” was considered immoral activity . I tend to agree with Sudeep # 13 – there is nothing particularly subcontinental about the story except its setting.Human nature is the same the world over – love, lust, passion, jealousy – there is nothing uniquely cultural about this.
no, we shouldn’t, and i’m not sure whether having drinks is all she was doing (perhaps it would be more of a dishonour to him to reveal what else, if anything, was going on?). but if that was it, or even if there was more, there’s a big difference between being comfortable with it, or even outraged, and killing for it.
I’m with Runa. Trust is the ultimate thing in a marriage, and if you can’t trust your spouse to go out and have a few drinks with others, then what’s really the point of the whole exercise?
As for “angelizing” the woman’s actions, I don’t see that there’s any reason to demonize her actions either. For all we know, her drinking with friends was completely innocent, and I don’t see the sense in blaming the woman for her husband’s irrational behavior.
True, but the names of the murderer and his victim have some brown significance, which is why I posted this story. Each blogger posts what we are moved by…for me, the juxtaposition of “Mughal” Mumtaz, so beloved and murdered Mumtaz…both named by their husbands, one killed by hers, well, I couldn’t leave it alone. And while our community may not have a monopoly on DV, femicide or honor killings, I don’t think there’s anything wrong in creating a space to talk about them, if some of us are so inclined.
We don’t know what she was or wasn’t guilty of, but I’m fairly sure it didn’t merit getting her throat slit, so how ’bout we not engage in unnecessary conjecture about her character?
It’s not a slippery slope. Remember the pulp fiction debate? having an alcoholic beverage at her house, isn’t the same thing as sticking their finger in the holiest of holes, but it’s in the same ballpark.
It’s not the ‘drinking’, it’s the drinking at home that sends a clear message. Any sensible person knows I’m right, what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex? I think it’s pretty clear, given all the little quippy answers given thus far.
Anna,
Don’t get me wrong – I was definitely not criticizing your post.Just pointing out – before the inevitable misogyny in the des stuff begins – that some basic human emotions are the same the world over.
Of course the fact that the woman was named Mumtaz , teh fact that she changed religions for the man who murdered her make ot all very poignant.
I am a big fan of your posts and the fact that you have the courage to share your emotions through writing
I’m not, I’m seeing it for what it is.
SM playbook:
Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male’s action.
and i do agree with hema and runa – in a relationship – you cannot be watching over your partner at every moment – you have to trust that they love or respect you enough to be faithful. if my partner is unfaithful, i have to re-evaluate our relationship and whether i want to be with him, not his very existence.
what would be your reaction if you came home to find your significant other sharing a cocktail with someone of the opposite sex?
There are too many missing variables in your scenario, HMF…and in the scenario described in the Shah Jahan-Mumtaz story. You cannot generalize that having drinks in your home with a member of the opposite sex is automatically suspicious.
Rule 17-3: Assume any criticism of the female is a statement of justification male’s action.
Dude, you did say we shouldn’t angelize her actions. So while you may not be justifying the male’s action, you seem to believe there was some sort of mitigating factor. That’s where we part ways.
HMF, My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.
The very fact that he is sharing a drink in my home makes it very obvious that there is nothing to hide. A drink is a drink is a drink and not necessarily a prelude to grande amour.
A sensible reaction is definitely not equating drinking to infidelity. And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.
I definitely agree with trusting one’s spouse and not assuming every drink is one step to infidelity, but we all take sensible precautions, don’t we? We meet friends of the opposite sex in a group and/or during the daytime rather than alone and with large amounts of alcohol or in a romantic setting. When people in couples travel a lot, though, drinking with friends of the opposite sex does happen more often, and the important thing is that my SO knows I had a drink with x friend, and I know he had a drink with x colleague, and everyone is open about the fact that they have spouses or SOs.
Having said that, the one time I walked over to a friendly neighbour’s place in the evening to return a book and he was having a drink with a good female friend who was also a friend of his wife’s, a month later we learned they were having an affair. Entertaining friends of the opp sex alone in one’s home = not a good idea at the best of times.
appeared instead in LA times and was about a crime of passion in a predominantly white, Los Angeles suburb, would it be expected that such hot-button words and phrases be used to describe that murder ?
there are two points here. the easy & simple one is that in LA the community would not try to free the man. one can explain & understand behavior without accepting that it is proper and justified. so yes, men are men the world around. the key difference is how the community reacts to these tragedies, accept it as the nature of things or signal moral sanction through criminal prosecution. today in the USA the latter would be the case, though not always. societies and mores change (and in cases of flagrante delicto it hasn’t changed that much).
but the second point here is that cultural mores differ. there is a wide variation across cultures in paternity confidence and assignment. how do we explain cultures, such as in working class white london, or parts africa, where 10-30% of the children might not be the biological offspring of their socially accepted father? cultures differ. in societies where female dalliance is socially accepted there tends to be a lot more female independence and less proportional male investment in this theoretical offspring. in the west the decline in this sort of rage about infidelity on the part of the woman has generally tracked economic independence and the loss of power of male clan lineages as powers within the social structure.
And in any case, I do not think infidelity is justification for murder either.
I agree. But I think that under the Indian Penal Code, infidelity would count as provocation sufficient to reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide. So maybe infidelity is sufficient legal justification, but would be pretty hard to prove in most circumstances.
Someone who actually knows something about criminal law in India, please correct me.
It is a statistically proven fact that it takes an average of 3.21 seconds for a wife to materialise next to her husband when she spots another woman striking up a conversation with him in a party/get-together.
M. Nam
It almost certainly is if that drink is Zima
Oh, no worries. 🙂 I didn’t feel like you were criticizing the post at all. I think I was just trying to pre-empt the inevitable, “Whyyyy did you post this??” 😉
Me too 🙂
I didn’t get the sense, when ANNA writes “a woman’s life is so little,” that this was a comment that was specific to spousal murder in India. She mentions that at the beginning when she discusses that her murder stat comes from the U.S. I think the underlying point was that domestic violence is prevalent and women’s lives are undervalued both in India and the U.S. This entire story is awful and ridiculous. I don’t think a person could call it a crime of passion. If it was a “crime of passion” there are a lot of awful things in that that we take as normal or normalized. The fact that someone thinks that what they view as infidelity allows them to murder someone else is possessive, jealous, abusive, and frankly, unhinged. The irony, given their names, is insane.
ANNA, thanks for this.
My sensible reaction would be to kick my shoes off and ask him to make me one too.
Even in the dusty backyards and fields in Dihata Village, in rural India. Are we being realistic and grounded in reality here? No doubt, in villages in India, people drink moonshine all the time, but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.
There is no justification for murder, absolutely.
However,
This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India – Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana…..I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.
but drinking together with guys (while husband away) has a implied social connotation.
I concede that, but if the woman in question really is about to do something nefarious, why would she do it in their home, when the husband could return any moment and catch her in the act? It just doesn’t add up, and I refuse to believe that rural women are too unsophisticated to know how to go behind their husband’s back.
man, that brings back memories. i was in high school when it first came on the market (boku was the light alcoholic beverage of the choice at that time). and an uncle at a party told me that it was OK for me to drink it because of the low alcohol content. i think uncle overestimated my tolerance.
cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are “Swanky” places…ahh…the “Swanky” industrial midwest.
This is not a case from Manhattan, NYC or 6th Street, Austin, TX, or an upscale bar or condo from San Felipe, Houston, TX. It is from heartland of rural India – Understanding the basic social milieu is the key while someone comments from their swanky offices in Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana…..I can see similar things happening in poor neighborhoods in Houston too or for that matter rich ones too.
just a minor note, i think there is a strong tendency cross-culturally for female infidelity rates to be inversely proportion with male income/status. that is, the wives of poor men cheat a lot more than the wives of rich men (often with men of higher SES than their own husbands, this was the pattern in lower class london families). so there might be a reason for poor men to fly into rage more often.
Kush, My comment was in response to HMF ‘s question. I am not speaking on behalf of Dihata ,its denizens or any one else.
See this is exactly what I wanted to avoid !
cause we all know that Ohio, Wisconsin and Indiana are “Swanky” places…ahh…the “Swanky” industrial midwest.
So you’re saying it’s not possible to have a swanky office in Ohio, Wisconsin or Indiana?
Tsk, tsk…anti-Midwest bias rears its ugly head once again at SM. It’s almost like we can’t go a whole week without someone trashing the Illinois and Michigans of the world.
razib, not sure if I buy the inverse infidelity proposition.
Again, with the midwest hateration! 🙂
You have got to be kidding me. I want to kick that guys ass first and then line up the villagers one after another and repeat the process.
I dont know about that.. I remember watching atleast one COPS where the cops go into arrest someone from an african neighborhood and they are pelted with bottles/stones etc. The ‘community’ in that case making it pretty clear that the cops were’nt welcome. The only difference in this situation and the one in India would be that Indian crowds are a lot more aggressive when it comes to mob action against cops, and that Indian cops are not well equipped to deal with mob control problems. In this situation, it would be very possible for the crowd to take extremely violent action against the cops, things like a cop getting his arms chopped off with a sword, or getting burnt alive, or getting castrated would not surprise me at all.
So what happened probably has less to do with accepting that particular mans actions as proper and justified, but a general distrust and hatred of cops. Even if the cops presented evidence of the most convincing kind, noone from that neighborhood would believe them anyway.
Sure.. what you say is true.. but how does it impinge on what I am trying to say ? That this is a story thats rich in opinion, but very sparse in details and facts. Like in Rashomon, we’ll find layers upon layers in these tragedies, each discovered by an observer with a different perspective. The truth can not be described entirely in simple ‘subaltern-izing’ terms as ‘honor-dishonor’ or female empowerment issues. (Note that we are not even observers in this drama, we rely simply on reports and opinions by others.. )
Indeed, the use of such terms only indicates to me, what the world view of the person who is making these comments is, and does not shed any light on what actually happened.
Sudeep, I think there’s a different dynamic when poor black neighborhoods pelt cops with things to get them to leave versus when people try to free someone because they don’t think that person did anything wrong. I can’t speak for the village — I have no idea which rationale they’re using, but if it’s the latter then the two cases are not comparable.
Agree w/ Kush. If I may apply couple common sense filters to “It was just a drink†comments. How many women from conservative society do we know, who just chill w/ couple guys? The husband had a legit claim to WTF moment. Nothing more. Certainly not violence or murder.
There was a study some years ago re: drinks w/ strangers or casual acquaintances (perhaps Razib can magically produce link). More than half ended up being more than just drinks.
No, not necessarily. I wasn’t making the statment: if she didn’t have the alcohol, with other men, in her house, without her husband, then her fate would never have happened. In fact, I’m not even entertaining that case. I’m saying given that she did, the obvious context and implication of such actions shouldn’t be swept away with statements like
“well if it were me, I’d just embrace him, sing him a lullably and thank him for inviting younger women to my house, just to show them how wonderful he and I are, and how much we trust each other!”
Give me a break. I’d bet even if a woman called her hubands cellphone and having a unidentifiable female voice answer, would set the fidelity neurons firing off like crazy.
( File under Humor) Okay -lots of divergent views here.So an someone please mark for me on an acceptability scale the following:- Scale is 1 to 5 5 = totally unacceptable 1= totally acceptable
a) Significant other (SO) has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in a bar after work b) SO has tea ( chai) with member of opposite sex at home in your absence c) SO has alcoholic drinks with (stranger/unknown) member of opposite sex in a bar after work d) SO has lassi with (unknown) member of opposite sex at lunchtime in a restaurant e) SO has alcoholic drinks with (known) member of opposite sex in (known) member’s home
Evidently,I don’t think about these things enough